Posted on 10/10/2005 12:42:45 PM PDT by Crackingham
For a few conservatives, the accumulation of discontents may have begun building toward today's critical mass in December 2001 with the No Child Left Behind law, which intruded the federal government deeply into the state and local responsibility of education, grades K through 12. That intrusion has been accompanied by a 51 percent increase in the budget of the Education Department that conservatives once aspired to abolish.
The accumulation accelerated in December 2003, when the Republican House leadership held open for three hours the vote on adding a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare. The time was needed to browbeat enough conservatives to pass the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ—an entitlement with an unfunded liability larger than that of Social Security. The president's only believable veto threat in nearly five years was made to deter an attempt to cut spending by trimming the drug entitlement.
Agriculture subsidies increased 40 percent while farm income was doubling. Conservatives concerned about promiscuous uses of government were appalled when congressional Republicans waded into the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Then came the conjunction of the transportation bill and Katrina. The transportation bill's cost, honestly calculated, exceeded the threshold that the president had said would trigger his first veto. (He is the first president in 176 years to serve a full term without vetoing anything. His father cast 44 vetoes. Ronald Reagan's eight-year total was 78.) In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks—pork—costing $1.4 billion. The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill—$286 billion—is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system.
With Katrina, "nation building"—a phrase as sensible as "orchid building," and an undertaking expressive of extravagant confidence in government—has come home.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Will hits one out of the park. One of the few writers who has improved with age.
Don't know if you saw Stephanoupoulous this Sunday. I tape it because Will is on the show..in the panel...and I can fast forward over the garbage( and this week there was an added bonus of Will one-on-one will Bill Buckley...but the panel was Will, Cokey Roberts, and Roert Reich..there's one scene were Roberts is babbing and Will has his chin on his hand with a look on his face that says "they're NOT paying me enough to sit here and listen to this garbage.." If, as rumoed, ABC is gonna dump Stephi because the ratings are awful..they should, IMHO, give the show to Will..
(He is the first president in 176 years to serve a full term without vetoing anything. His father cast 44 vetoes. Ronald Reagan's eight-year total was 78.) In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks—pork—costing $1.4 billion. The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill—$286 billion—is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system.
Still reading...
"The total cost of the bill—$286 billion—is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system."
Man! That's an astounding stat. Incredible.
I keep saying, our problem is that we don't have accountability. And we don't have accountability because the parties don't have any competition. We don't really have a two party system; we have two ONE party systems competing for control.
What the hell does that mean? It means that the two parties are so far apart, one is not a reasonable alternative to the other. A disgruntled conservative isn't going to go Democrat any more than a disgruntled leftist is gonna go GOP. So neither side has any leverage, which means neither party can effectively be held accountable.
Further, both one party systems benefit from having the other one around as a bugaboo. Pissed off at GWB? Would you rather see John Kerry as president? Ready to abandon the GOP? Say hello to President Hillary. And so on.
So it's not just mismanagement by one administration or party. It's a broken system that provides the people very little leverage to hold anyone accountable. You see it here on FR. People don't want to go hard on the prez for fear of helping the other side.
"Since 2000 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled, from 16,342 to 34,785. They have not been attracted to the seat of government, like flies to honey, for the purpose of limiting government."
Another shameful legacy.
When I say the parties are too far apart, I mean their platforms. In practice, they are not that far apart, and for all I know are quite happy to appear different, but govern the same.
Will sometimes has context problems, and he gets stuck on particulars too. He's good, but in a limited sort of way.
Hey Huck you got that right, and well said, too.
"...We don't really have a two party system; we have two ONE party systems competing for control."
"...our problem is that we don't have accountability. And we don't have accountability because the parties don't have any competition. We don't really have a two party system; we have two ONE party systems competing for control."
...or as I often point out to people...
we in effect have ONE two-headed party!
Or so it would seem at times...
Spitz'
That bears repeating... bump!
"When I say the parties are too far apart, I mean their platforms. In practice, they are not that far apart, and for all I know are quite happy to appear different, but govern the same." - Huck
Sucks for us. Somehow life is still pretty good, though.
Hastert is no conservative, he is a Bob Michaels midwest socialist republican i.e. a spender. The revolution died when Newt was knifed in the back by Dick Armey and the band of losers.
Will talks about vetoes by Reagan of a transportation bill - does he mentioned that they congress gave him the finger and passsed it with plenty of republican support?
Actually, the revolution died when Newt decided that getting good ink in the New York Times was more important than adhering to the spending caps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.